1708 replies to this topic

[drmz]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

Is it possible that imminst and other fora are being used as a vehicle to spread the word ? ANd if it occurs, what can be done about that ? (maybe should open a different topic about this) The question is already in my mind for the last year.It's not that hard to create a hype on the internet.Only thing you need is a bit of free time and a moderate attention span

Edited by drmz, 29 November 2007 - 05:18 PM.

[missminni]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

That's exactly what I was implying. It so tacky.
I used to work for a research
pharmacologist at Brown University when I was a student. It never ceased to amaze me what
ruthless capitalists scientists could be.

[tom a]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

That's exactly what I was implying. It so tacky.
I used to work for a research
pharmacologist at Brown University when I was a student. It never ceased to amaze me what
ruthless capitalists scientists could be.

Personally, I'm not much scandalized by the idea that Sinclair is being very much a capitalist here. I certainly interpret all of his quotes as having been passed through the prism of his monetary interests.

But I do expect that he will not say something false, because preserving his scientific reputation won't allow it.

In general, I don't even think that monetary interests are the worst culprits in driving scientists to distort. In fact, they are at least as much driven to do so so that they can defend their pre-existing scientific assertions, theories, and ideologies.

[geo12the]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

That's exactly what I was implying. It so tacky.
I used to work for a research
pharmacologist at Brown University when I was a student. It never ceased to amaze me what
ruthless capitalists scientists could be.

Sigh. Let’s try to resistant scientist bashing here. First, no one works for free. Research itself is hugely expensive. Scientists work very hard and are generally underpaid for their level of education and long work hours. If scientists at Sirtris get rich, good for them. We benefit from discoveries at companies like Sirtris. They claim to have found 3 compounds that work similarly to resveratrol but are much stronger. Who knows, some of us may benefit from taking these drugs in the future. If Sirtris didn’t do the research to find these compounds who would have?

[missminni]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

That's exactly what I was implying. It so tacky.
I used to work for a research
pharmacologist at Brown University when I was a student. It never ceased to amaze me what
ruthless capitalists scientists could be.

Sigh. Let’s try to resistant scientist bashing here. First, no one works for free. Research itself is hugely expensive. Scientists work very hard and are generally underpaid for their level of education and long work hours. If scientists at Sirtris get rich, good for them. We benefit from discoveries at companies like Sirtris. They claim to have found 3 compounds that work similarly to resveratrol but are much stronger. Who knows, some of us may benefit from taking these drugs in the future. If Sirtris didn’t do the research to find these compounds who would have?

On the whole I agree, however what I was referring to was his reference to a "real drug" as if resveratrol wasn't real or as good as one that is
man made. How ironic that the naturally occurring substance is not considered real.
Furthermore, coming from the mouth of a scientist, this
puts a bit of a negative spin on resveratrol, or maybe I am just reading a little too much between the lines.
Personally, I prefer to take a naturally occurring substance to a man made one any day.
But that's just me.
And when he refers to it being 1000 times stronger than resveratrol, does he mean resveratrol as it naturally occurs in grapes or wine etc, or
the purified resveratrol?

[geo12the]

On the whole I agree, however what I was referring to was his reference to a "real drug" as if resveratrol wasn't real or as good as one that is
man made. How ironic that the naturally occurring substance is not considered real.
Furthermore, coming from the mouth of a scientist, this
puts a bit of a negative spin on resveratrol, or maybe I am just reading a little too much between the lines.
Personally, I prefer to take a naturally occurring substance to a man made one any day.
But that's just me.
And when he refers to it being 1000 times stronger than resveratrol, does he mean resveratrol as it naturally occurs in grapes or wine etc, or
the purified resveratrol?

Point taken. I agree with a lot of what you said. People tend to forget that a large percentage of medicines and drugs, for example aspirin, were originally found as natural plant substances. As for the “real drug” thing, let them say that. It’s a very good thing they are saying that. It’s in all our best interests that resveratrol NOT start being known as or labeled as a drug or the FDA will get involved. So everyone repeat after me “Resveratrol is NOT a real drug”.

Edited by geo12the, 29 November 2007 - 08:05 PM.

[niner]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

That's exactly what I was implying. It so tacky.
I used to work for a research
pharmacologist at Brown University when I was a student. It never ceased to amaze me what
ruthless capitalists scientists could be.

Sigh. Let’s try to resistant scientist bashing here. First, no one works for free. Research itself is hugely expensive. Scientists work very hard and are generally underpaid for their level of education and long work hours. If scientists at Sirtris get rich, good for them. We benefit from discoveries at companies like Sirtris. They claim to have found 3 compounds that work similarly to resveratrol but are much stronger. Who knows, some of us may benefit from taking these drugs in the future. If Sirtris didn’t do the research to find these compounds who would have?

On the whole I agree, however what I was referring to was his reference to a "real drug" as if resveratrol wasn't real or as good as one that is
man made. How ironic that the naturally occurring substance is not considered real.
Furthermore, coming from the mouth of a scientist, this
puts a bit of a negative spin on resveratrol, or maybe I am just reading a little too much between the lines.
Personally, I prefer to take a naturally occurring substance to a man made one any day.
But that's just me.
And when he refers to it being 1000 times stronger than resveratrol, does he mean resveratrol as it naturally occurs in grapes or wine etc, or
the purified resveratrol?

Resveratrol is a crappy drug. It is sulfated and glucuronidated like crazy, so you have to take a ton of it to do much good. It has some negative side effects, like the GI upsets that occur in some people, even when taking high purity extracts or synthetics. Recently we've seen evidence that it is immunosuppressive. It's not even that powerful of a SIRT1 activator. I think that when Sinclair says "real", he means "good". The 1000 times he refers to is related to the potency of the drug as a SIRT1 activator; one of the NCEs is active at nanomolar concentrations, while resveratrol requires micromolar concentrations for similar effect. The NCE sounds like a very good drug, or very "real", if you will. I'm not surprised that the stock popped. I'm also not surprised that I was enough of a pinhead not to own any, but it always looks obvious in retrospect. BTW, don't take what I say here as a big anti-resveratrol screed. I'm still taking it. I think it gave me a tummy ache last night so maybe I'm a little grumpy. (Or maybe it was the jalapenos...)

[missminni]

Resveratrol is a crappy drug. It is sulfated and glucuronidated like crazy, so you have to take a ton of it to do much good. It has some negative side effects, like the GI upsets that occur in some people, even when taking high purity extracts or synthetics. Recently we've seen evidence that it is immunosuppressive. It's not even that powerful of a SIRT1 activator. I think that when Sinclair says "real", he means "good". The 1000 times he refers to is related to the potency of the drug as a SIRT1 activator; one of the NCEs is active at nanomolar concentrations, while resveratrol requires micromolar concentrations for similar effect. The NCE sounds like a very good drug, or very "real", if you will. I'm not surprised that the stock popped. I'm also not surprised that I was enough of a pinhead not to own any, but it always looks obvious in retrospect. BTW, don't take what I say here as a big anti-resveratrol screed. I'm still taking it. I think it gave me a tummy ache last night so maybe I'm a little grumpy. (Or maybe it was the jalapenos...)

Taking 2 or 3 grams does not seem like a ton to me. And if an upset tummy is the worst side effect, I'd say that is pretty damn
good compared to the side effects of most "real or good drugs".
I recall the post about the evidence of it being immunosuppressive however I don't recall that evidence being conclusive.
Was it?
It will be interesting to see what the side effects of his new "real good drug" will be.
I don't discount that it might be more effective in activating SIRT1 but I just don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I'm sorry if I am coming across as super critical of Dr. Sinclair and his publicity push for Sirtris, but it was a bit too obvious for me to ignore.

[missminni]

On the whole I agree, however what I was referring to was his reference to a "real drug" as if resveratrol wasn't real or as good as one that is
man made. How ironic that the naturally occurring substance is not considered real.
Furthermore, coming from the mouth of a scientist, this
puts a bit of a negative spin on resveratrol, or maybe I am just reading a little too much between the lines.
Personally, I prefer to take a naturally occurring substance to a man made one any day.
But that's just me.
And when he refers to it being 1000 times stronger than resveratrol, does he mean resveratrol as it naturally occurs in grapes or wine etc, or
the purified resveratrol?

Point taken. I agree with a lot of what you said. People tend to forget that a large percentage of medicines and drugs, for example aspirin, were originally found as natural plant substances. As for the “real drug” thing, let them say that. It’s a very good thing they are saying that. It’s in all our best interests that resveratrol NOT start being known as or labeled as a drug or the FDA will get involved. So everyone repeat after me “Resveratrol is NOT a real drug”.

Excellent point. That's my new mantra.

[Anthony_Loera]

On the whole I agree, however what I was referring to was his reference to a "real drug" as if resveratrol wasn't real or as good as one that is
man made. How ironic that the naturally occurring substance is not considered real.
Furthermore, coming from the mouth of a scientist, this
puts a bit of a negative spin on resveratrol, or maybe I am just reading a little too much between the lines.
Personally, I prefer to take a naturally occurring substance to a man made one any day.
But that's just me.
And when he refers to it being 1000 times stronger than resveratrol, does he mean resveratrol as it naturally occurs in grapes or wine etc, or
the purified resveratrol?

Point taken. I agree with a lot of what you said. People tend to forget that a large percentage of medicines and drugs, for example aspirin, were originally found as natural plant substances. As for the “real drug” thing, let them say that. It’s a very good thing they are saying that. It’s in all our best interests that resveratrol NOT start being known as or labeled as a drug or the FDA will get involved. So everyone repeat after me “Resveratrol is NOT a real drug”.

Excellent point. That's my new mantra.

:tung:
Of course it's not a real drug, it's just a tiny molecule, you know like water ...


:whis:

ok just kidding there... but seriously, geo12the has a very good point.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 29 November 2007 - 09:12 PM.

[missminni]

:tung:
Of course it's not a real drug, it's just a tiny molecule, you know like water ...

:whis:

ok just kidding there... but seriously, geo12the has a very good point.

Yes, an excellent point that I am sure is being considered by the manufacturers of the synthetic substance as we discuss this.
AFAIC, it is a plant, not a drug. But according to the FDA, marijuana, obviously a plant that is used unprocessed
in plant form, is called a drug, so I am sure when it serves the powers that be, a plant can be a drug.
Does restreverol fit into the description below?
Drug (noun) according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device.

It appears so, and
I'm willing to bet even if it doesn't, they will make it fit and try to limit its availability.
The AMA, FDA, and Pharmaceutical Industry have a very incestuous relationship.
Oh, and let's not forget the medical schools. They are right up there in bed with them.

http://www.medicalne...icles/23518.php
USA Today on Tuesday examined the "political clout of the pharmaceutical industry," which since 1998 has spent $758 million on lobbying efforts -- more than any other industry, according to the... Center for Public Integrity. The pharmaceutical industry in 2003 spent $143 million on lobbying activities. At that time, there were 1,274 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington, D.C. -- more than two for every member of Congress, USA Today reports. Of those, 476 were former federal officials, including 40 former members of Congress. Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) earlier this year was named CEO and president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.According to USA Today, Tauzin's move to the private sector is "testament to the industry's power." Prior to taking his position with PhRMA, Tauzin helped pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Currently, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) -- the "gatekeeper for legislation that comes to the Senate floor" -- is a "key lobbying target" for the industry, USA Today reports.
http://www.medicalne...icles/85908.php
About 60% of department heads at medical schools and teaching hospitals in the U.S. have personal financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies, according to a study published on Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Edited by missminni, 29 November 2007 - 10:32 PM.

[tintinet]

:tung:
Of course it's not a real drug, it's just a tiny molecule, you know like water ...

:whis:

ok just kidding there... but seriously, geo12the has a very good point.

Yes, an excellent point that I am sure is being considered by the manufacturers of the synthetic substance as we discuss this.
AFAIC, it is a plant, not a drug. But according to the FDA, marijuana, obviously a plant that is used unprocessed
in plant form, is called a drug, so I am sure when it serves the powers that be, a plant can be a drug.
Does restreverol fit into the description below?
Drug (noun) according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1): a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2): a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3): a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4): a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device.

It appears so, and
I'm willing to bet even if it doesn't, they will make it fit and try to limit its availability.
The AMA, FDA, and Pharmaceutical Industry have a very incestuous relationship.
Oh, and let's not forget the medical schools. They are right up there in bed with them.

http://www.medicalne...icles/23518.php
USA Today on Tuesday examined the "political clout of the pharmaceutical industry," which since 1998 has spent $758 million on lobbying efforts -- more than any other industry, according to the... Center for Public Integrity. The pharmaceutical industry in 2003 spent $143 million on lobbying activities. At that time, there were 1,274 registered pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington, D.C. -- more than two for every member of Congress, USA Today reports. Of those, 476 were former federal officials, including 40 former members of Congress. Former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) earlier this year was named CEO and president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.According to USA Today, Tauzin's move to the private sector is "testament to the industry's power." Prior to taking his position with PhRMA, Tauzin helped pass the Medicare prescription drug benefit as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Currently, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) -- the "gatekeeper for legislation that comes to the Senate floor" -- is a "key lobbying target" for the industry, USA Today reports.
http://www.medicalne...icles/85908.php
About 60% of department heads at medical schools and teaching hospitals in the U.S. have personal financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies, according to a study published on Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Yada yada yada.....

Capitalism is the ethos of America, folks. Ever heard of the guiding hand of Adam Smith?

True, one can't allow greed to overwhelm ethical considerations and purity of science, but the shareholders of Sirtris hold
the company's officers and employees responsible for running an eventually profitable concern. The focus on daily stock price
fluctuations, is, however, ludicrous.

[missminni]

Yada yada yada.....

Capitalism is the ethos of America, folks. Ever heard of the guiding hand of Adam Smith?

True, one can't allow greed to overwhelm ethical considerations and purity of science, but the shareholders of Sirtris hold
the company's officers and employees responsible for running an eventually profitable concern. The focus on daily stock price
fluctuations, is, however, ludicrous.
[/font][/color]

I have no problem with Sirtris of any drug company making money.
I just have a problem when my options are limited by laws that pander to
them.

[browser]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

Is it possible that imminst and other fora are being used as a vehicle to spread the word ? ANd if it occurs, what can be done about that ? (maybe should open a different topic about this) The question is already in my mind for the last year.It's not that hard to create a hype on the internet.Only thing you need is a bit of free time and a moderate attention span

You're referring to all the biotech firms which sprung up around Stanford, Cal Tech and other places, founded by former professors at said universities, right?

[browser]

I appear to have received some interesting ratings. Could someone give me the link to deciphering them?

[tintinet]

I appear to have received some interesting ratings. Could someone give me the link to deciphering them?

Which ratings?

[missminni]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

Is it possible that imminst and other fora are being used as a vehicle to spread the word ? ANd if it occurs, what can be done about that ? (maybe should open a different topic about this) The question is already in my mind for the last year.It's not that hard to create a hype on the internet.Only thing you need is a bit of free time and a moderate attention span

You're referring to all the biotech firms which sprung up around Stanford, Cal Tech and other places, founded by former professors at said universities, right?

I think this is very likely. Afterall, I found Imminst by googling "resveratrol dosage".

[drmz]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

Is it possible that imminst and other fora are being used as a vehicle to spread the word ? ANd if it occurs, what can be done about that ? (maybe should open a different topic about this) The question is already in my mind for the last year.It's not that hard to create a hype on the internet.Only thing you need is a bit of free time and a moderate attention span

You're referring to all the biotech firms which sprung up around Stanford, Cal Tech and other places, founded by former professors at said universities, right?

Not in particular.I just think when you raise $82 Million (from investors include Polaris Venture Partners, TVM Capital, Cardinal Partners, Skyline Ventures, Three Arch Partners, The Wellcome Trust, Bessemer Venture Partners, Novartis Bioventures Fund, Cargill Ventures, Genzyme Corporation, QVT Fund LP, Cycad Group, Hunt Ventures, Red Abbey, and Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc) , it's needed to keep in mind that all that comes out on their web page or in public is with marketing in mind. They need to pay that loan back and the investors demand interest as well.Once on the stock market, everything is about making money for the shareholders.The resveratrol topic is not different from the x other topics there are about products on different forums throughout the web.It seems like after product X a company always makes a product X1, either more bioavailable then product x or with some sort of weird delivery mechanism.I don't say it cannot be benefical for health.I'm sure it's not a 100% fraud or something.But it's about making cash, offcourse they need to make cash to develop something.But if they really find something that is 100% benefical for us, it will cost alot of $$$ and it's patended by a corporation.I believe Noam Chomsky calls this real existing free markets (money from the public flowing to companies who develop something with that money, ending up with a branded product for which way pay alot for a long long time because of the monopoly on the product)

[missminni]

Things like this always make me very very sceptic >>

Sirtris's stock rose 7.8 percent to $18.38 yesterday. The company, which went public in May, had seen its share price climb 71 percent through Tuesday

Is it possible that imminst and other fora are being used as a vehicle to spread the word ? ANd if it occurs, what can be done about that ? (maybe should open a different topic about this) The question is already in my mind for the last year.It's not that hard to create a hype on the internet.Only thing you need is a bit of free time and a moderate attention span

You're referring to all the biotech firms which sprung up around Stanford, Cal Tech and other places, founded by former professors at said universities, right?

Not in particular.I just think when you raise $82 Million (from investors include Polaris Venture Partners, TVM Capital, Cardinal Partners, Skyline Ventures, Three Arch Partners, The Wellcome Trust, Bessemer Venture Partners, Novartis Bioventures Fund, Cargill Ventures, Genzyme Corporation, QVT Fund LP, Cycad Group, Hunt Ventures, Red Abbey, and Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc) , it's needed to keep in mind that all that comes out on their web page or in public is with marketing in mind. They need to pay that loan back and the investors demand interest as well.Once on the stock market, everything is about making money for the shareholders.The resveratrol topic is not different from the x other topics there are about products on different forums throughout the web.It seems like after product X a company always makes a product X1, either more bioavailable then product x or with some sort of weird delivery mechanism.I don't say it cannot be benefical for health.I'm sure it's not a 100% fraud or something.But it's about making cash, offcourse they need to make cash to develop something.But if they really find something that is 100% benefical for us, it will cost alot of $$$ and it's patended by a corporation.I believe Noam Chomsky calls this real existing free markets (money from the public flowing to companies who develop something with that money, ending up with a branded product for which way pay alot for a long long time because of the monopoly on the product)

and add to that the FDA rules and regulations that control that substance for the benefit of the drug company that commercially develops it and the medical schools and doctors that slavishly encourage it's use and the growing legislation that attempts to limit our access to natural substances and botanicals, but promotes the synthetic ones with horrific side effects

Edited by missminni, 30 November 2007 - 01:16 PM.

[wayside]

<deleted. I should know to read the entire thread before I post. >

Edited by wayside, 30 November 2007 - 11:13 PM.

[niner]

I hope David Sinclair becomes a billionaire. My justification for this is based on what he's done for mankind so far, and what Sirtris appears primed to do in the future. I compare this to the accomplishments of the Richest Man in the World. He got that way by being clever enough to buy a glorified loader from some guy for fifty grand, then reselling it as MSDOS. He parlayed that into a gigantic firm that grew wealthy beyond belief peddling buggy defective software and suppressing competition. I'm not saying Bill didn't come by his money legally, I'm just making a comparison of what he did to, say, contributing to the ending of aging. At least Bill is now doing good works with his personal fortune, though he could kick a bit towards the MF if he really wanted to impress me.

[missminni]

I hope David Sinclair becomes a billionaire. My justification for this is based on what he's done for mankind so far, and what Sirtris appears primed to do in the future. I compare this to the accomplishments of the Richest Man in the World. He got that way by being clever enough to buy a glorified loader from some guy for fifty grand, then reselling it as MSDOS. He parlayed that into a gigantic firm that grew wealthy beyond belief peddling buggy defective software and suppressing competition. I'm not saying Bill didn't come by his money legally, I'm just making a comparison of what he did to, say, contributing to the ending of aging. At least Bill is now doing good works with his personal fortune, though he could kick a bit towards the MF if he really wanted to impress me.

I agree with you 100% on both counts.
I just ask that my options not be limited by their success.
Thats all.

[azengineer]

I have been lurking here for some time, and felt it was about time I added my anecdotal two cents worth.

I became interested in supplements after my father died 10 years ago at age 59 of a heart attack after clocking a pretty good time up Camelback Mountain in Phoenix. He left a good-looking corpse.

I started out working on cholesterol issues. I've been following a Kowalski regimen (nicotinic acid, Pantathine etc.) which my blood tests confirm pushes my lipid profile in all the right directions.

About six years ago, my wife started exhibiting signs of chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, IBS, etc. A whole spectrum of immune system, endocrine, digestive and neurological issues to deal with. That got me involved with hormones. I eventually started using testosterone cream three years ago at age 46.

I believe that I started using resveratrol sometime in 2004. I would guess that my dosage range was in the 30-70 mg range per day up to last January when I increased to a consistent target of 100 mg trans-resveratrol. In July, I moved my target up to 300 to 400 mg per day. In October, I ordered some 98% from Anthony and upped my target to 1000 mg.

I am the oldest of three brothers by two, and four years. We were all together for the first time in four years this Thanksgiving. At this gathering, as with those prior, relatives seem rather shocked at the aging differences. Both my brothers have become markedly more wrinkled, gray, and balded that I. Both brothers are physical, as am I. The middle brother and I do double crossings of the Grand Canyon (48 miles, 10,000+ vertical feet) twice a year. But he looks at least 10 years older than me at this point. I had thought that something was accelerating his aging (which may be true), but after seeing my youngest brother it seems more like it may be me that is out of line.

Both of my brothers are having joint issues that I don't have. One has had rotator cuff operations on both shoulders and the other has had an operation on his back for disk problems. In comparing aches and pains, I just don't have much compared to either of them.

I do lots of medical and supplement research, primarily in an effort to mitigate my wife's health issues, but also for myself. Our house has enough pill bottles to stock a pharmacy. And you couldn't have talked me into taking multivitamins or aspirin 10 years ago.

I can't say with any certainty whether or not any of my interventions have made a difference. I may be genetically more fortunate than my brothers. Or perhaps the viruses and other bugs I've accumulated over the years have been less aggressive than what they have come across. Or perhaps it's because I live at 7800 feet.

In any case, I see no need to alter my health approach at this point.

I am overdue for blood tests, so I don't have any real data showing an effect of the higher dose of resveratrol. I wouldn't actually expect anything significant based on what I've seen in the literature anyway.

In scanning my health log, I did comment several times about more energy and better mood when I increased to 300 to 400 mg level. I'm not sure if I noticed anything at all in the jump to 1000 mg. except for perhaps a little digestive upset. I feel normal. I feel normal like I did at 35, and unlike I did between the ages of 40 and 45.

I just bought a new kayak, graduating from rubber duckies to hard shell play boats that I can do tricks in. I bought some new mogul skis, as I trashed my old skis last year. I'm training towards a record (for me) double Grand Canyon crossing in March, after my 50th birthday. My bench press dropped down to 250 pounds, but my weight is down a bit to 170 pounds (@ 5'10") also.

And that's my anecdotal two cents worth. I hope it adds something to the knowledge base.

[drmz]

I hope David Sinclair becomes a billionaire. My justification for this is based on what he's done for mankind so far, and what Sirtris appears primed to do in the future. I compare this to the accomplishments of the Richest Man in the World. He got that way by being clever enough to buy a glorified loader from some guy for fifty grand, then reselling it as MSDOS. He parlayed that into a gigantic firm that grew wealthy beyond belief peddling buggy defective software and suppressing competition. I'm not saying Bill didn't come by his money legally, I'm just making a comparison of what he did to, say, contributing to the ending of aging. At least Bill is now doing good works with his personal fortune, though he could kick a bit towards the MF if he really wanted to impress me.

I agree with you 100% on both counts.
I just ask that my options not be limited by their success.
Thats all.

Same goes for me.I just take in mind that a corporation is not owned by it's founder but by it's shareholders.Usually shareholders have nothing or not much to do with the field the corporation works in.Most investment groups give $ and want $+ back.
Take your Bill example and exchange windows 3.1 / 95 / 98 / ME /XP / Vista / 2007 and so on for resveratrol and it's future variations.......and take in mind what you have to pay for it. I admit there is some progess in their products (MS), but in general it's about making cash, keeping a foot on the breaks (of development) to lure more money out of our pockets.They decide when they shift gears.On the other hand, nothing would be developed without capitalism or corporations competing for market shares....blehhhh :ang:

Edited by drmz, 01 December 2007 - 03:11 PM.

[levkamensky]

Well. I have been taking 4 grams a day from Biotivia for around a month. I haven't noticed any major changes. I lost some weight, but it may be because of my fruitarian diet.

[missminni]

Well. I have been taking 4 grams a day from Biotivia for around a month. I haven't noticed any major changes. I lost some weight, but it may be because of my fruitarian diet.

you haven't noticed increased endurance when you work out?
do you have any joint issues or chronic pain or things that you expected to change or improve
that haven't?

[levkamensky]

Well. I have been taking 4 grams a day from Biotivia for around a month. I haven't noticed any major changes. I lost some weight, but it may be because of my fruitarian diet.

you haven't noticed increased endurance when you work out?
do you have any joint issues or chronic pain or things that you expected to change or improve
that haven't?

no i haven't noticed increased endurance. one guy here said he started noticing changes in indurance at 10 grams. i can't afford that much. i don't have any joint issues or chronic pain.

[levkamensky]

this doesn't mean i'll stop taking it. even a much smaller dose may have an effect over the long haul. who knows. improvement often comes in imperceptible incriments but over the long haul when you look back you see an enormous effect.

i was hoping to effect a change similar to the super-athlete mice though. if they can why can't i? not fair!

Edited by levkamensky, 08 December 2007 - 01:21 AM.

[missminni]

Well. I have been taking 4 grams a day from Biotivia for around a month. I haven't noticed any major changes. I lost some weight, but it may be because of my fruitarian diet.

you haven't noticed increased endurance when you work out?
do you have any joint issues or chronic pain or things that you expected to change or improve
that haven't?

no i haven't noticed increased endurance. one guy here said he started noticing changes in indurance at 10 grams. i can't afford that much. i don't have any joint issues or chronic pain.

I'm only taking between 1 and 2 grams and I noticed increased endurance when working out. Are you taking a powder or capsule? I guess if there is nothing wrong with you, it would be hard to figure out if it were doing anything. Do you work out regularly or do some physical exercise on a regular basis that you could compare to before and after res. That would be the only way you would notice the increased endurance. Under normal circumstances it might go unnoticed.

[levkamensky]

Well. I have been taking 4 grams a day from Biotivia for around a month. I haven't noticed any major changes. I lost some weight, but it may be because of my fruitarian diet.

you haven't noticed increased endurance when you work out?
do you have any joint issues or chronic pain or things that you expected to change or improve
that haven't?

no i haven't noticed increased endurance. one guy here said he started noticing changes in indurance at 10 grams. i can't afford that much. i don't have any joint issues or chronic pain.

I'm only taking between 1 and 2 grams and I noticed increased endurance when working out. Are you taking a powder or capsule? I guess if there is nothing wrong with you, it would be hard to figure out if it were doing anything. Do you work out regularly or do some physical exercise on a regular basis that you could compare to before and after res. That would be the only way you would notice the increased endurance. Under normal circumstances it might go unnoticed.

yes i do do a form of exercises where i can compare before and after endurance, in fact i was hoping to see some improvement in endurance with this particular exercise, inspired by this poster who said that he noticed significant improvements in endurance after ten grams. i take mine with grapefruit juice to maximize bioavailability. i take capsules, what do you take?